Wright v. United States ( 2019 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 OK 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:14-cr-00028-KJD-GWF 2:16-cv-02901-KJD 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER ALBERT JASON WRIGHT, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 13 Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (#36). Essentially, Defendant seeks to be re-sentenced because his “sentence was enhanced under 2k2[.]’” Defendant argues that Johnson v. United 15 | States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) invalidated an identical residual clause as that used to enhance his 16 | sentence. However, Defendant is factually wrong. While his sentence was enhanced pursuant to 17 U.S.S.G. § 2K2, the enhancement was not based on a residual clause, but upon 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) 18 | which increased the offense level by two points because the crime involved a stolen firearm. Further, even if Defendant had been sentenced under the residual clause, Beckles v. United 20 | States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 890 (2017) determined that sentences enhanced under “the advisory 21 | guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.” 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside 23 | or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (#36) is DENIED; 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other outstanding motions are DENIED as moot. 25 | Dated this 30" day of October, 2019. | ) YO Kent J. Dawson 28 United States District Judge